ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON QUALITY ASSURANCE. Annual Report. July 2011 June 2012

ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON QUALITY ASSURANCE Annual Report July 2011 June 2012 nce Learning Outcomes Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Degree Level Expectations Evaluation am Approval Appraisal Program Approval Audit Cyclical Program Review Major Modifications Quality Assurance ssessment of Teaching and Learning Evaluation Criteria Learning Outcomes Degree Level Expectations Program ram Approval Appraisal Audit Cyclical Review Major Modifications Ontario Universities Council on Quality uality Assurance Framework Assessment of Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Learning Outcomes Degree ions Evaluation Criteria Program Approval Appraisal Cyclical Program Review Audit Major Modifications sities Council on Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Framework New Program Proposal Assessment of Teaching Quality Assurance Learning Outcomes Degree Level Expectations Evaluation Criteria Program Approval Appraisal lical Review Major Modifications Evaluation Criteria Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Quality mework Assessment of Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Learning Outcomes Degree Level Expectations val Appraisal Audit Cyclical Review Major Modifications Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Quality mework New Program Proposal Assessment of Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Learning Outcomes xpectations Evaluation Criteria Program Approval Appraisal Audit Cyclical Review Major Modifications Ontario

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance 180 Dundas Street West Suite 1100 Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8 Tel: 416-979-2165 extension 235 Fax: 416-979-8635 Email: oucqa@cou.on.ca http://www.cou.on.ca/quality.aspx

Message from the Chair of the Quality Council Sam Scully The Quality Council's second year of operation has been successful in building upon a very productive first year. We are still very much in transition and development as we animate our charter document, the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), but our progress has been such that we can now attest that the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV) and, in particular, the creators of the QAF produced an excellent set of processes and standards that are working well as we bring them to life. Above all, the momentum of the growing operation is noteworthy. For the Council and the universities our first year was very much about the Institutional Quality Assurance Processes (IQAPs), and their careful review and approval were all completed in that year. The second year has seen the birth of the Appraisal Committee, whose task it is to review all new undergraduate and graduate program proposals and to make recommendations to the Council. The Committee members rigorous and incisive work, under the leadership of their chair, Jeffrey Berryman, has made the deliberations of the Council for the most part straightforward and rewarding as we consider the diverse and innovative proposals from the universities. Central to these discussions about new programs of both the Committee and the Council has been the contemporary preoccupation with the definition of learning outcomes, but the familiar issues of faculty strength, space and support for students, particularly in graduate proposals, are still ever present. The great diversity of proposals has brought a real challenge to us all in maintaining consistency in our judgements, and there has been much discussion about degree nomenclature. Transition takes various forms. For example, the universities are still learning to work with their new IQAPs, and the Council has inherited from OCGS the task of reviewing the progress reports required of the institutions following reviews of graduate reports. This coming year will see the first audits of university compliance with their own IQAPs and the rounding-out of the organizational structure set out in the QAF. Our successes can be attributed to many factors. The strength of the QAF has already been alluded to. The Council has gelled very quickly, and all its discussions are informed by candour and mutual respect among the members. But, above all, we must acknowledge the multiple contributions of our Secretariat, under the wise and patient leadership of Donna Woolcott. Donna, Cindy and Shevanthi are always timely in their contributions and interventions, and all our work bears witness to their engagement.

Message from the Executive Director Donna Woolcott This second Annual Report from the Quality Council summarizes its key activities over the past year. It provides me with the opportunity to acknowledge the important work of the members of the Quality Council and the Appraisal Committee. Sam Scully and Jeffrey Berryman have provided exemplary leadership for these two bodies, respectively, over the year and I particularly want to thank them for their service and their continued leadership for the coming year. The members of these two groups demonstrate real commitment to their roles and to ensuring the continued successful implementation of the Quality Assurance Framework. The quality assurance activities in Ontario s universities take place during a turbulent time in the postsecondary education (PSE) sector. Factors both internal and external to the universities challenge the status quo. Some voices external to the universities are calling for radical innovation or even revolution in the PSE sector, including changes to type and delivery of programs, and for greater accountability around learning outcomes. Universities react in their own individual ways to these factors. Many universities are actively engaged in new program development and all of them are making program changes on a regular basis to improve their delivery and quality, respond to student needs and to rapid changes in many disciplines. Some universities are developing new programs in collaboration with international partners. The Quality Assurance Framework calls for the Quality Assurance Secretariat to confirm if the quality assurance processes that apply to the international partner are roughly comparable to those in place here in Ontario. This year, we have looked into the quality assurance processes in place for universities in China, France, Germany, and Italy. We were also very pleased to host a delegation from Swedish universities who were interested in developing a quality assurance system similar to ours. My observation from the exploration of quality assurance in other jurisdictions is that the Ontario system continues to be a leader in ensuring the quality of programs and degrees offered in Ontario universities. One of the strengths of the new quality assurance system is its emphasis on learning outcomes. Universities are able to respond directly to students and others who call for more accountability because they now are identifying learning outcomes for all new and existing programs. The Quality Council and the QA Secretariat have been very involved this year in assisting faculty and others in universities in learning more about how to develop and assess learning outcomes. The most visible evidence of this was our participation in the successful Symposium on Learning Outcomes held in Toronto in April 2012. We also assisted the Council of Ontario Universities in preparing the publication, Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario: A Guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Level Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario. The accomplishments we have achieved this past year would not have been realized without the dedication of the members of my team in the Quality Assurance Secretariat. Cindy Robinson, Manager Quality Assurance, Shevanthi Dissanayake and Kurshid Dain provided outstanding co-ordination and administrative assistance. The team provided great support to me, the Quality Council and its committees, while at the same time transitioning to a new data management system that underpins the activities of the Secretariat. They were in regular contact with members of the universities, responding to questions and providing assistance and advice on request. I thank them for their support.

The Quality Council: An Overview The Quality Council was established in 2010 by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) as the body that oversees the quality assurance of undergraduate and graduate programs offered by the publicly assisted universities in Ontario. Its work is guided by the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), which includes protocols that apply to programs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. The Quality Council communicates its program approval decisions to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU), which makes program-funding decisions. However, since it is at arm s length from both the universities and the government, the Quality Council has a unique quality assurance role in both the province and the country. While the primary locus of responsibility rests with each university to ensure that all programs offered meet the standards of quality identified in the QAF, the Quality Council has the responsibility to review and approve all proposals for new programs to be offered by each university. The Quality Council may also review and approve major modifications to university programs. A further Quality Council responsibility includes auditing universities on a periodic cycle to ensure that they adhere to the quality assurance processes ratified by the Quality Council when they introduce new programs, make major program modifications and conduct cyclical program reviews. The Quality Council s Appraisal Committee began its work in 2011-2012. It had 66 new program and expedited approval submissions to review over the course of its 10 meetings. More details on the outcome of this work can be found under Program Approvals below. Final transition activities were conducted by the Quality Council as it extended an invitation for nominations to the first Quality Council Panel of Auditors. All universities participated in the nomination process, and 20 nominations were received. A final panel of ten auditors was elected, representing all regions and a variety of disciplines, as well as experience at the senior level in nine institutions in Ontario. The Schedule of Audits, which establishes on an eight-year cycle when each university will be subject to Quality Council audit, was also approved by the Quality Council. The audits will begin in 2012-2013, allowing the universities some time and experience in implementing their IQAP before the first audit. Audits will be conducted to assess the institution s compliance with its IQAP while undertaking its internal quality assurance activities. Membership of the Audit Committee will be established in 2012-2013. Quality Assurance Activities The Quality Council held eight meetings during the course of the year. Program innovation was clearly evident throughout the new program proposals submitted for approval during the course of the year. While the number of proposals for new programs that came to the Quality Council for approval was lower than anticipated in this first year of program approvals under the QAF,

there are some interesting trends to observe. More new programs are being created at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level; most of the new programs, whether graduate or undergraduate, cross the boundaries of disciplines, and have an applied focus that will lead graduates readily to a career path; and all of them identify learning outcomes and how these will be assessed. Quality assurance is conducted by the institutions and the Quality Council through rigorous and well-respected processes that ensure the quality of programming in Ontario s publicly funded universities. The universities submit all new undergraduate and graduate degree programs, programs of specialization and for-credit graduate diploma program proposals to the Quality Council. However, submissions are only made following intense scrutiny of the proposal within a university, as well as by external experts in the proposed program s discipline. Once submitted to the Quality Council, each proposal undergoes an in-depth review by members of the Council s Appraisal Committee. On the basis of this review and subsequent Appraisal Committee recommendation, the Council then decides whether to approve or reject the new program. Chart 1 depicts the minimum number of steps that must be undertaken during the development and approval of a new program. The Quality Council focused on the following areas during the course of the year: Appraisal activity: Conducting the appraisal and program approvals for universities seeking to offer new degree and diploma programs. Timelines for decisions: During the course of these appraisals, the Quality Council and its Appraisal Committee worked hard to meet the QAF's promised turnaround times in its first year of reviewing new program proposals. Learning outcomes: Appraisal Committee interaction with universities on their new program submissions was primarily related to the proposed learning outcomes. Conferences and presentations: Co-sponsoring and organizing the Symposium on Learning Outcomes Assessment: A Practical Guide and offering advice and guidance to institutions on the QAF's processes and procedures. The Quality Council s website: Program approvals and Quality Council agendas and minutes were posted to ensure transparency. Looking forward to 2012-2013 and beyond: The membership of the Panel of Auditors was determined in 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 will see the final transition phase as the work of the auditors starts in earnest. A second event learning outcomes assessment event will also be held in April 2013.

Chart 1: Overview of Approval Process for New Undergraduate and Graduate Program Approvals 1. INTERNAL UNIVERSITY PROCESS Development of new proposal brief External review Internal response Institutional approval University s governance procedures 2. QUALITY COUNCIL APPROVAL PROCESS Appraisal Committee review and recommendation Quality Council Approval to Commence 3. FOLLOW-UP PROCESS Ongoing program monitoring by the institution Cyclical review within 8 years of first enrolment

Appraisal Activity There were 89 submissions made to the Quality Council during 2011-2012. Of the 31 new program proposals, 21 received final decisions. A further 23 of those submitted for expedited approval 1 also received a final decision. The Quality Council also reviewed 23 reports on graduate program reviews. These reports were required by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS) review process. There were 22 submissions that were still under review by the Appraisal Committee at year-end. Table 1 and Chart 2 describe the year s appraisal activity. Table 1: Appraisal Activity Submission Type New Programs Total Submitted Total Completed In Progress Undergraduate 10 9 1 Graduate 21 12 9 Expedited Approvals Major Modification (undergraduate) 10 10 0 Major Modification (graduate) 0 0 0 New Collaborative 5 3 2 New Graduate Diploma (Type 1 2 0 2 New Graduate Diploma (Type 2) 9 7 2 New Graduate Diploma (Type 3 8 2 6 New field in a graduate program 0 0 0 Other 1 1 0 Reports on Graduate Programs 23 23 0 Total Reviewed in 2011-12 89 67 22 1 The Quality Council will normally require only an Expedited Approval process where: a) an institution requests endorsement of the Quality Council to declare a new Field in a graduate program. (Note that institutions are not required to declare fields in either master s or doctoral programs.); or b) there is a proposal for a new Collaborative Program; or c) there are proposals for new for-credit graduate diplomas; or d) an institution requests it, there are Major Modifications to Existing Programs, as already defined through the IQAP, proposed for a degree program or program of specialization. The Expedited Approval Process requires the submission to the Quality Council of a Proposal Brief of the proposed program change/new program (as detailed above) and the rationale for it. Only the applicable criteria outlined in Framework Section 2.1 will be applied to the proposal. The process is further expedited by not requiring the use of external reviewers; hence Framework Sections 2.2.6 through 2.2.8 (inclusive) do not apply. Furthermore, the Council s appraisal and approval processes are reduced.

Chart 2: Appraisal Activity 25 20 9 15 23 10 1 2 5 9 12 10 2 7 6 0 3 2 2 1 In Progress Total Completed Final decisions of Approved to Commence or Approved to Commence, with Report were made by year-end for the following programs submitted for review under the new program and expedited approval processes. Detailed descriptions of these programs are available on the Quality Council s website: University / Program McMaster University Honours Actuarial and Financial Mathematics, BSc(Hon) Master of Finance, MFin Master of Science in Health Science Education, MSc OCAD University Aboriginal Visual Culture, BFA University of Ottawa Master of Arts in Bilingualism Studies / Maîtrise ès arts en études du bilinguisme, MA Environmental Sustainability at the master s level / Programme pluridisciplinaire en durabilité de l environnement au niveau de la maîtrise, MA/MSc Type of Review

University / Program Type of Review University of Ottawa (Saint Paul University) Ethics and Religious Beliefs in the Media/Diplôme d études supérieures en Éthique et croyances religieuses dans les medias, GDip (Type 3) Queen s University Community Relations for the Extractive Industries, Graduate Certificate Master of Science in Healthcare Quality, MSc(HQ) Ryerson University Creative Industries, BA Financial Mathematics, BSc Professional Communication, BA Real Estate Management, BComm University of Toronto Cinema Studies, PhD Master of Science in Sustainability Management, MScSM Specialist (Co-op) in Management and International Business, BBA Women and Gender Studies, PhD University of Waterloo Computer Networking and Security, GDip (Type 2) Design Engineering, GDip (Type 2) Fire Safety, GDip (Type 2) Green Energy, GDip (Type 2) Management Sciences, GDip (Type 2) Master of Peace and Conflict Studies, MPACS Master of Social Work, MSW Software Engineering, GDip (Type 2) Sustainable Energy, GDip (Type 2) Western University Clinical Medical Biophysics, MSc Community Music Leadership, GDip (Type 3) Master of Financial Economics, MFE Musculoskeletal Health Research, MA/MSc/PhD (Collaborative Program) Pathology Assistant, MCIS Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Reconstruction, MA/MSc/PhD (Collaborative Program) Western University/Zhejiang University Chemical Engineering (International Collaboration), BESc York University Health Industry Management, GDip (Type 2)

Timelines for Decisions The QAF promises that a university will normally receive a decision on its proposed new program within 45 days of submission. Where additional information is required by the Appraisal Committee, a decision should be received within a further 30 days of the Committee receiving a satisfactory response to its request. Chart 3 below depicts the Quality Council s success in meeting these target turnaround times for the 44 applicable submissions: Chart 3: Turnaround Times for Completed Appraisals 46-75 days 2 appraisals 75 + days 2 appraisals 0-45 days 40 appraisals As Chart 3 indicates, there were two appraisals that took over 75 days to complete. One of these appraisals was completed in 114 days, and the second in 158 days. In both instances, several interactions were required between the Appraisal Committee and the proposing university, prior to the proposal being ready for a final decision. Ultimately, both programs were Approved to Commence.

Learning Outcomes Defining program learning outcomes and how they will be assessed is a critical component of Ontario s QAF. Learning outcomes are used to align individual courses with degree level expectations (DLEs) and must be specified at the program level for all new programs and expedited approval proposals. The COU publication Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario describes the difference between degree level expectations and learning outcomes, as follows: While DLEs describe what degree holders should know and be able to do in order to be awarded a university degree, learning outcomes explain what students know and are able to do by the end of an assignment, activity, course or program. The evaluation of students learning outcomes shows the extent to which the objectives of an assignment, course or program have been achieved. Much of the Appraisal Committee s interaction with universities on their new program submissions was related to the proposed learning outcomes, or the initial lack thereof. As a result of the great work being done in developing learning outcomes, more examples of learning outcomes and their assessment will be added to the Guide to the Quality Assurance Framework. Conferences and Presentations The development and assessment of learning outcomes is, on the whole, a relatively new but growing area of strength in the province. The Symposium on Learning Outcomes Assessment: A Practical Guide was held in April 2012 at the Delta Chelsea Hotel in Toronto and was designed to bring further clarity to the process of defining the learning outcomes of university courses and programs. Over 300 people, including university and college faculty and administrators, local and out-of-province experts, government and others involved in the field were in attendance. Evidence of leadership and best practice already taking place was readily evident through the course of this highly successful event. Speakers presentations can be accessed at: http://www.cou.on.ca/news/news---views/cou-news-andevents/quality-council-symposium-on-learning-outcomes. With the Quality Council being one of the Symposium s co-sponsors, the Secretariat took the lead in its organization. The following organizations collaborated as co-sponsors on the Symposium: Council of Ontario Universities Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario Ontario College Quality Assurance Service Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance

Planning for a second learning outcomes event is now underway. This will be held in April 2013, and will provide a more hands-on approach through a variety of workshop opportunities and a greater discipline-specific focus. Members of the Secretariat also made a number of visits to universities during the course of the year. These visits included giving presentations on the Quality Assurance Framework and its processes to senior administrators, faculty and staff. The Executive Director Quality Assurance, joined at times by the Chair of the Quality Council, also interacted with several universities to gain a greater understanding of some of the program proposals under review, and to provide Quality Council feedback on these reviews to the universities. The Quality Council s Website The website is an important tool in the Quality Council s efforts to enhance communication with its stakeholders and members of the public. It also allows the Quality Council to deliver on its mission to operate in a fair, accountable and transparent manner. Further information on the Quality Council and its members, the Quality Council s Appraisal and Audit Committees, and general quality assurance resources are available on the website. Table 2: Quality Council Web Statistics Total Page Views 15,328 Unique Page Views 11,158 Average Time on Page 1:26 Peak Viewing Time April/May 2012 It is anticipated that a new visual identity and website for the Quality Council will be unveiled in January 2013. Looking Forward to 2012-2013 and Beyond The work of the Quality Council is in its infancy, and there is much to look forward to in the coming years. The next year promises to be another milestone year as we initiate the Audit process, which is the final phase of implementation of the Quality Assurance Framework. All universities will be audited every eight years to ensure that their quality assurance practices are in conformity with their Quality Council ratified IQAP. The first panel of auditors has been elected and they begin with audits of two universities in 2012-2013.

The Quality Council anticipates receiving an increasing number of new program and expedited approval submissions as the universities continue their work in program evolution. We will expand our support for universities by organizing another learning outcomes assessment event with partner organizations. Given the sell-out crowd last year, the venue has been expanded to accommodate more participants. We anticipate that speakers from Ontario s universities and beyond will share their experiences of developing and assessing learning outcomes in a handson and discipline-focused manner. The Quality Council also looks forward to the introduction of a new visual identity and website in 2012-2013. Principal Documents of the Quality Council The Quality Assurance Framework The Quality Assurance Framework was developed by a special taskforce, which worked closely over a two-year period with the Vice-Presidents Academic of Ontario's Universities, and received support from the Executive Heads of Ontario Universities. The Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities was consulted regularly during the Framework s development. The Quality Assurance Framework was last updated in May 2012. The Guide to the Quality Assurance Framework The Guide contains practical suggestions, references and sample templates. Additional examples, references and template ideas from users of the Guide are welcomed. It will be updated regularly as new material becomes available and in response to user suggestions. Examples of best practice are encouraged in our approach to quality assurance, as well as reinforcing institutional efforts to make timely program innovations and modifications, and to continue their focus on quality improvements. Both documents can be found at: http://www.cou.on.ca/related-sites/the-ontario-universitiescouncil-on-quality-assura/policies/quality-assurance-framework---guide.aspx.

Operating Principles of the Ontario Universities Council On Quality Assurance The Quality Council developed a set of principles which govern operation of the Council and its committees. As can be seen in the principles outlined below, members are committed to making decisions based on the QAF and using processes that are fair, transparent and free of conflict, real or perceived. 1. The members of the Quality Council are committed to the principles and practices of quality assurance in the postsecondary education sector. 2. All members are thoroughly knowledgeable about the Quality Assurance Framework and are guided by it in their decision-making. 3. Members of the Quality Council represent the system rather than their own institution while they undertake their work related to the Quality Council. 4. Decisions of the Quality Council take place by consensus or vote following a full discussion of the relevant issues. 5. All members of the Quality Council are responsible for preparing for meetings and participating with respectful, open and honest communication, and ethical conduct. 6. Members are committed to respecting issues of gender, race, religion and culture. 7. Members of the Quality Council and its Committees are committed to responding to University submissions as expeditiously as possible. 8. Members of the Quality Council avoid conflicts of interest in carrying out their responsibilities. To that end, no member of Council or its Committees, who currently is employed by an Ontario university, will participate in a discussion or decision on a submission from their own institution. 9. Members shall not participate in any discussion or decision with respect to any matter in which they believe their impartiality may be affected by personal interest, financial interest or by a recent personal or professional relationship with one of the parties. 10. Members who believe they may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest on any matter before the Council or its Committees shall declare it to the Chair in advance of the discussion.

Mission and Mandate of the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Mission The Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance is the provincial body responsible for assuring the quality of all programs, leading to degrees and graduate diplomas that are granted by Ontario s publicly assisted universities, and the integrity of the universities quality assurance processes. Through these practices, the Quality Council also assists institutions to improve and enhance their programs. In fulfilling its mission, the Quality Council operates in a fair, accountable and transparent manner with clear and openly accessible guidelines and decisionmaking processes, and through reasoned results and evidenced-based decisions. Mandate The roles and responsibilities of the Quality Council, while respecting the autonomy and diversity of the individual institutions, are the following: to guide Ontario s publicly assisted universities in the ongoing quality assurance of their academic programs to review and approve proposals for new graduate and undergraduate programs to ensure through regular audits that Ontario s publicly assisted universities comply with quality assurance guidelines, policies and regulations for graduate and undergraduate programs to communicate final decisions to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to review and revise, from time to time for future application, the Council of Ontario University s quality assurance protocols in light of its own experiences and developments in the field of quality assurance to liaise with other quality assurance agencies, both provincially and elsewhere to undergo regular independent review and audit at intervals of no longer than eight years Membership There are nine voting members of the Quality Council, including its Chair. All but the citizen member are appointed by OCAV following an open nomination process for three-year terms, renewable once. The citizen member is appointed by COU through its Executive Committee.

Membership The following members served on the Quality Council in 2011-2012: Dr. Sam Scully (Chair) Dr. Ron Bond (Out-of-Province Quality Assurance Expert) Dr. Sue Horton (Graduate Dean Representative) Mme. Maureen Lacroix (Citizen Member) Dr. Moira McPherson (Undergraduate Dean Representative) Mr. Eric Nay (Academic Colleague Representative) Dr. Patrick Oosthuizen (Academic Colleague Representative) Dr. Cheryl Regehr (OCAV Representative) Dr. Bruce Tucker (OCAV Representative) Dr. Donna Woolcott (Executive Director, Quality Assurance, Ex-officio) The Appraisal Committee members for 2011-2012 included: Prof. Jeffrey Berryman (Chair), Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Dr. Kenneth Coley, Department of Material Science and Engineering, McMaster University Dr. Douglas Evans, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University Dr. Christine Gottardo, Department of Chemistry, Lakehead University Dr. André Lapierre, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa Dr. Kathryn Shailer, Faculty of Liberal Studies, OCAD University Dr. Sandy Welsh (Vice-Chair), Sociology, University of Toronto Dr. Donna Woolcott (Ex-officio), Executive Director, Quality Assurance The Audit Panel members elected in 2011-2012 include: Dr. Carolyn Andrew, University of Ottawa (Public Policy) Dr. John ApSimon, Carleton University (Chemistry) Dr. Alan George, University of Waterloo (Computer Science) Dr. Katherine Graham, Carleton University (Public Policy and Administration) Dr. Roma Harris, Western University (Information and Media Studies) Dr. David Marshall, Nipissing University (Education) Dr. Kathleen McCrone, University of Windsor (History) Dr. Christine McKinnon, Trent University (Philosophy) Dr. Charles Morrison, Wilfrid Laurier University (Music) Dr. Marilyn Rose, Brock University (English) The members of the Quality Assurance Secretariat are: Donna Woolcott, Executive Director, Quality Assurance Kurshid Dain, Committee Coordinator/Administrative Assistant Shevanthi Dissanayake, Coordinator, Quality Assurance Cindy Robinson, Manager, Quality Assurance

Members of the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Dr. Sam Scully, Chair Sam Scully, now a postsecondary education consultant, served eight-year terms as Provost and Vice-President Academic at both the University of Victoria and Dalhousie University. Since he 'retired' in 2007, he has been engaged in quality assurance work, including policy development and conducting unit reviews, and in assisting Canadian universities with their searches for senior academic positions. Dr. Ronald Bond, Out-of-Province Quality Assurance Expert Now a consultant, Ronald Bond is experienced in all levels of academic administration: head, associate dean, dean, vice-president (academic) and provost. He served as provost from 1997 to 2006 at the University of Calgary, where he was named Provost Emeritus by the Board of Governors and has been invested as a member of the Order of the University of Calgary. Dr. Bond is in his second term as Chair of the Campus Alberta Quality Council and chairs the 10-person Advisory Board of the Canadian Research Knowledge Network. Dr. Sue Horton, Graduate Dean Representative Sue Horton is Associate Provost, Graduate Studies, at University of Waterloo. She has also served as Vice-President, Academic at Wilfrid Laurier University, Interim Dean at University of Toronto, Scarborough, and Associate Dean in Arts and Science, University of Toronto. She has served on one of the selection panels for the Premier's Discovery Awards, as Chair of the CIDA Tier 2 selection committee, as Vice Chair of the Board of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, and as Treasurer of the Board of the African Economic Research Consortium. Mme. Maureen Lacroix, Citizen Member Maureen Lacroix s experience in Northern health care spans three decades in a variety of roles, ranging from front-line nursing to positions of senior leadership and administration. She was a member of the Laurentian University Board of Governors from 1996 to 2009, including serving as Chair of the Board of Governors from 2001 to 2003. She currently Chairs the Northern Ontario Cancer Centre Foundation.

Dr. Moira McPherson, Undergraduate Dean Representative As the Deputy Provost at Lakehead University, Dr. McPherson s responsibilities include program review and the transition to the new Quality Assurance Framework. She represents the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) on Senate Standing Committees, including Undergraduate Studies, Senate Academic, Teaching and Learning, Continuing Education and Distributed Learning, and is a member of the Graduate Studies and Deans Councils. She served as Acting Vice- President (Academic) in 2010-11 and continues as the lead on the Academic Planning process. Mr. Eric Nay, Academic Colleague Representative Mr. Nay is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences and School of Interdisciplinary Studies at OCAD University and an Associate Dean in this same Faculty. Mr. Nay is an Architect with an educational background in design history and theory. Mr. Nay has been a member of OCADU s administrative team for the past six years, as well as having served as OCAD University s COU Academic Colleague for the past five years. Mr. Nay has helped establish and maintain quality standards and practices for programs, minors and graduate programs in his role at his own institution, and has served on numerous committees and subcommittees in his role in the COU. Dr. Patrick Oosthuizen, Academic Colleague Representative Dr. Oosthuizen, a professional engineer, was born and educated in South Africa. After teaching for several years in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Cape Town, Dr. Oosthuizen joined the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Queen s University in 1968. Dr. Oosthuizen teaches mainly in the areas of Compressible Fluid Flow, Aerospace Engineering, Heat Transfer and Energy Systems and has received a number of teaching awards. He was greatly involved with the CDIO initiative in engineering education in its earlier stages. This work involved investigation of the criteria that define a high quality engineering program. Dr. Cheryl Regehr, OCAV Representative Cheryl Regehr is the Vice-Provost of Academic Programs for the University of Toronto with responsibility for ensuring the quality of academic programs and units, academic planning and new program development, cross-faculty initiatives and University-wide academic policies. Former Dean of the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, Dr. Regehr is a Professor in the Faculty of Social Work, the Faculty of Law and the Institute for Medical Sciences at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Bruce Tucker, OCAV Representative Bruce Tucker is the Associate Vice-President, Academic Affairs at the University of Windsor. He is responsible for the academic planning and development of new academic programs, and the review of existing undergraduate programs. Dr. Tucker has published widely in both Canada and the United States on American intellectual and cultural history, the religious history of early New England, American urban history and Appalachian migration. He is currently working on a study of post 9/11 American political culture. Dr. Donna Woolcott, Executive Director, Quality Assurance, Exofficio Prior to joining COU, Dr. Woolcott spent 30 years as a faculty member in Ontario and Nova Scotia including a seven year period as Vice-President (Academic) at Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU) in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Prior to joining MSVU, she was the Assistant Vice-President (Academic) at the University of Guelph for three years, where she had oversight for the university s internal quality review processes. Dr. Woolcott served from 2004 to 2009 on the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission, which has responsibility for new programs approvals and for monitoring quality assurance at the universities in the three Maritime provinces.